About your Search

20130513
20130513
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
, critics say it came up short. this new push stems from revelations that the cia's original talking points used by ambassador susan rice in the days after the attack had undergone significant edits by senior administration officials. >> for the president's spokesman to say well there were only words or technical changes made in the e-mail is a flat-out untruth when we know any reference to act of terror or al qaeda were removed from those talking points and it was done at a deputy's meeting just before susan rice went -- >> would you call this a cover-up? >> i'd call it a cover-up. i would call it a cover-up in the extent that there was wi willful removal of information which was obvious. >> he said untruths by the way. he did not use the word lie. >>> former defense secretary robert gates defending the administration's handling of the attacks in libya. >> based on everything i've read people really didn't know what was going on in benghazi contemporaneously, and to send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment was or threat was without ha
times as he down played what the c.i.a. was putting in the report, what they actually came out with, who was to blame for the conclusions that proved to be faulty. >>steve: any time there is a question asked of jay carney and it is something prepared for, if you notice, he reads a card off the top of his lectern. he's got things he's supposed to say. he is just the mouthpiece for this administration. it is the job of the white house press corps to ask the really tough questions. it is interesting because people are starting to wake up in the mainstream media -- thank goodness. maureen dowd yesterday wrote the administration's behavior before and during the attack in benghazi in which four americans died was unworthy of the greatest power on earth. there were other people in the mainstream media going we kind of trusted these guys. maybe we shouldn't have. >>brian: pickering is pushing back hard. former secretary of defense gates yesterday came forward. he said if i was secretary of defense, i wouldn't have sent an f-16 over there because i was afraid shoulder fire missiles might take the
there was no there-there. on friday we learned the cia talking points went through 12 rounds of changes with the heavier than usual previously thought involvement of the state doe apartment and the white house. that it was outlined in a series of e-mails. here's what the president had to say about it all today. >> the whole issue of this, of talking points, frankly throughout this process has been a sideshow. the e-mails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. suddenly three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. there's no there-there. and the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations. we've had folks who have challenged hillary clinton's integrity, susan rice's integrity, mike mullen and tom pickering's integrity. it's a given that mine gets challenged by these same folks. they've used it for fund-raising. >> was the president right? is the issue of how the talking points were changed a political sideshow? u.s. congressman michael turner is on the oversight and government
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)